FRA Annual Report 2010

European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights
Annual Report
2010
Conference Edition

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Annual Report 2010
3
Foreword
The Annual Report 2010 covers events and developments in the area of
fundamental rights in the European Union during 2009. It is the first annual
report to be published since the entry into force in December 2009 of the Treaty
of Lisbon, which has significantly strengthened the protection of fundamental
rights at a EU level.
The report encompasses the full range of fundamental rights issues now covered
by scope of the FRA mandate since it was expanded in March 2007. While the
areas of the former EUMC mandate – namely racism, xenophobia, and issues
related to migrants and minorities – still figure prominently in this report, there
is also coverage of those broader thematic areas that are represented in the
Agency’s Multi-annual Framework adopted in February 2008. These can be
found in sections of the report covering, in turn: discrimination based on sex,
disability and sexual orientation; the rights of the child and protection of
children; immigration and border control; access to justice and victim
compensation; participation of EU citizens in the Union’s democratic
functioning, and information society, respect for private life, and protection of
personal data.
This report draws on data and information collected by the Agency’s RAXEN
National Focal Points (NFPs) and its FRALEX group of senior legal experts in
each of the 27 Member States of the EU, as well as on the findings of primary
research projects carried out by the Agency itself. The Agency’s various
research projects are referred to throughout the report at points where the
findings are directly relevant to the thematic areas being discussed. These
findings, rooted in research and expert analysis, enable comparisons to be made
between all 27 Member States, and also provide evidence upon which future
policies can be based.
Valuable sources of information for this report also continue to derive from
various institutions and mechanisms established by the Council of Europe.
Examples of fruitful cooperation between the FRA and the Council of Europe
include the common project on Roma migration and Roma movement that was
finalised in 2009. In early 2010, the Agency concluded an agreement with the
European Court of Human Rights to work on a joint project with the aim of
publishing a case-law handbook on European non-discrimination. Deliverables
such as these add further strengths to a complimentary relationship that provides
the European landscape of fundamental rights protection with reliable data and
solid findings.

Annual Report 2010
4
We would like to thank the Management Board of the FRA for their diligent
overseeing of the Annual Report process, and the Scientific Committee of the
FRA for the advice they provided on the report in its early stages.
We also take this opportunity to thank the staff of the FRA for their
commitment and hard work on this and all the other FRA projects during the
year.
Ilze Brands Kehris Morten Kjaerum
Chairperson of the Director of the FRA
Management Board

Annual Report 2010
5
Contents
Foreword .........................................................................................................................3
List of abbreviations.......................................................................................................9
Executive Summary......................................................................................................13
Introduction...................................................................................................................22
1. Equality bodies and complaints mechanisms under the
Racial Equality Directive.................................................................................27
1.1. The level of awareness......................................................................................29
1.2. Complaints data from equality bodies................................................................33
2. Racist violence and crime...............................................................................35
2.1. Effective means to assess the extent and nature of the problem ......................35
2.2. Overall trends in officially recorded racist crime.................................................35
2.3. Trends in anti-Semitism.....................................................................................38
2.4. Trends in right-wing extremism..........................................................................39
2.5. EU-MIDIS: filling a gap in current knowledge ....................................................40
2.6. Encouraging developments? .............................................................................44
3. Specific areas of social life.............................................................................46
3.1. Racism and discrimination in employment.........................................................48
3.1.1. Indirect statistical evidence of discrimination.....................................................48
3.1.2. Incidents and cases of discrimination ................................................................48
3.1.3. Surveys of minorities and the majority population .............................................51
3.1.4. Discrimination testing.........................................................................................52
3.1.5. Informal recruitment...........................................................................................53
3.1.6. Religious and cultural symbols at work..............................................................53
3.1.7. Statistics and ethnic monitoring.........................................................................54
3.1.8. Discriminatory legislation...................................................................................55
3.1.9. Extreme exploitation ..........................................................................................56
3.2. Racism and discrimination in the housing sector...............................................59
3.2.1. Research findings..............................................................................................59
3.2.2. Discrimination and advertisements....................................................................61
3.2.3. The housing situation of Roma and Travellers ..................................................62
3.2.4. Restrictions in access to housing.......................................................................63
3.3. Racism and discrimination in the education sector............................................65
3.3.1. Access to education...........................................................................................65
3.3.2. Racist incidents and discriminatory practices ....................................................67
3.3.3. Inequality in education.......................................................................................68
3.3.4. Issues and debates concerning discrimination and exclusion in education.......69

Annual Report 2010
6
3.3.5. Support measures and good practice activities.................................................71
3.4. Racism and discrimination in the healthcare sector...........................................75
3.4.1. Access to healthcare for irregular migrants and asylum seekers ......................75
3.4.2. Roma health ......................................................................................................78
3.4.3. Cultural mediation..............................................................................................79
3.4.4. Access to mental health services ......................................................................80
3.5. Migrant and minority issues in other areas of social life ....................................81
3.5.1. Political participation (elections) ........................................................................81
3.5.2. Participation in public administration .................................................................82
3.5.3. Issues of religious and cultural symbols ............................................................83
3.5.4. Minority languages and language barriers.........................................................86
3.5.5. Negative discourse on minorities, including during elections.............................89
3.5.6. Roma and the recognition of marriage ..............................................................90
3.5.7. A diversity approach to minorities......................................................................90
4. Equality and anti-discrimination ....................................................................92
4.1. Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.................92
4.2. Discrimination on grounds of disability ..............................................................95
4.2.1. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities .........................................95
4.2.2. Defining disability...............................................................................................96
4.2.3. Progress with proposal for a ‘horizontal’ directive..............................................96
4.3. Developments on equality .................................................................................97
4.3.1. Commission communication on health inequalities...........................................97
4.3.2. Strengthening legislation ...................................................................................97
4.3.3. Linking ethnic origin with nationality ..................................................................99
4.3.4. Strengthening civil society ...............................................................................100
4.3.5. Equal treatment between women and men .....................................................101
4.4. Positive actions................................................................................................103
5. The rights of the child and protection of children......................................104
5.1. Legal framework..............................................................................................104
5.1.1. UN Convention and policy guidelines..............................................................104
5.1.2. Integrated European policy approaches..........................................................105
5.2. Monitoring child protection and well-being.......................................................107
5.2.1. Establishing an analytical framework...............................................................107
5.2.2. Care and the prevention of violence against children......................................109
5.3. Developments at EU and national level...........................................................112
5.3.1. Commission proposals ....................................................................................112
5.3.2. Protection at Member State level.....................................................................114
5.3.3. Child and youth special authorities..................................................................115
5.3.4. Good Practices................................................................................................116

Annual Report 2010
7
6. Immigration and border control ...................................................................118
6.1. Asylum, immigration and integration of migrants.............................................118
6.1.1. Legal developments.........................................................................................121
6.1.2. Good Practices ................................................................................................128
6.2. Visa and border control....................................................................................130
6.2.2. Good practices.................................................................................................131
7. Access to justice and victim compensation................................................133
7.1. Access to efficient and independent justice.....................................................133
7.1.2. Good practices.................................................................................................135
7.2. Compensation of victims..................................................................................136
7.2.2. Good Practices ................................................................................................138
8. Participation of the citizens of the Union in the Union’s
democratic functioning.................................................................................140
8.1. Legal developments.........................................................................................141
8.2. Good practices.................................................................................................141
9. Information society, respect for private life and protection of
personal data .................................................................................................143
9.1. Legal developments.........................................................................................146
9.2. Good practices.................................................................................................150
Conclusions ................................................................................................................152
Annex 1: International human rights instruments...................................................162
Annex 2: Country codes.............................................................................................171

Annual Report 2010
8

Annual Report 2010
9
List of abbreviations
ADB Anti-Discrimination Bureau (the Netherlands)
ADNB Landesstelle für Gleichbehandlung – gegen Diskriminierung,
(anti-discrimination office, Germany)
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
ALARM Action pour le Logement Accessible aux Réfugiés à Molenbeek
(Action for Accessible Housing for Refugees in Molenbeek,
Belgium)
APA Aliens’ Police Act (Fremdenpolizeigesetz – FPG, Austria)
ASGI Associazione Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (association for
legal studies on immigration, Italy)
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
BGG Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz (Act on Equal Opportunities
for Disabled Persons, Germany)
BHC Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
BMUKK Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur (Ministry
for Education, Arts and Culture, Austria)
CEDAW United Nations Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women
CEOOR Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism,
Belgium
CERD UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
CMU Couverture Maladie Universelle (universal health insurance
system, France)
CNPD Commission nationale à la protection des données (National
Commission on Data Protection, Luxembourg)
CommHR Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

Annual Report 2010
10
CPT European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
CTI Czech Trade Inspection (Česká obchodní inspekce, Czech
Republic)
DACoRD Dokumentations- og rådgivningscenteret om
racediskrimination (Documentation and advice centre on
racial discrimination, Denmark)
DIER Department of Industrial and Employment Relations. (Malta)
DIHR Danish Institute for Human Rights (Institut for
Menneskerettigheder )
EAD Impulsbeleid Evenredige Arbeidsdeelname en Diversiteit
(Impulse-Policy Proportional Work Participation and Diversity,
Belgium)
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
ECJ Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly the European
Court of Justice)
ECPAT End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of
Children for Sexual Purposes
ECRI European Commission against Racism and Intolerance
ECRML European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
EHRC Equality and Human Rights Commission (UK)
EMN European Migration Network
ENOC European Network of Ombudspersons for Children
EPSCO Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs
Council
ERA Equality & Rights Alliance (Ireland)

Annual Report 2010
11
ETC Equal Treatment Commission (Commissie gelijke behandeling,
the Netherlands)
EU-MIDIS European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (FRA)
FCNM Framework Convention for the protection of National
Minorities
FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
FRALEX Fundamental Rights Agency Legal Experts (FRA)
HALDE Haute autorité de lutte contre les discriminations et pour
l’égalité (Equal Opportunities and Anti-Discrimination
Commission, France)
HCNM High Commissioner on National Minorities (OSCE)
HSB Hyresgästernas Sparkasse och Byggnadsförening (Tenants
Savings and Building Society, Sweden)
INED Institut national d’études démographiques (National institute
for demographic studies, France)
LGBT Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
LIBE Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the
European Parliament
LRC Law Reform Commission (Ireland)
MAF Multiannual Framework (FRA)
MAT Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (UK)
NCCRI National Consultative Committee on Racism and
Interculturalism (Ireland)
NFP National Focal Point (FRA)
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
ODIHR Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE)
OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
RAXEN Racism and Xenophobia Network (FRA)

Annual Report 2010
12
SBG State Border Guard (Valsts Robežsardze, Latvia)
SLI State Labour Inspectorate (Valsts Darba inspekcija, Latvia)
SPRAR Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati
(Protection system for asylum seekers and refugees, Italy)
StPO Strafprozessordnung (Criminal Procedure Code, Germany
TEU Treaty of the European Union
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the EU
UNHCR UN High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
VCA Victims of Crime Act (Verbrechensopfergesetz VOG Austria)
ZfT Zentrum für Türkeistudien (Centre for Turkish Studies,
Germany)
ZPO Zivilprozessordnung (Act on Civil Procedures, Austria)

Annual Report 2010
13
Executive Summary
The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon at the end of 2009 has significantly
strengthened the protection of fundamental rights at European level. Under the
new European Union (EU) treaties the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has
become legally binding, setting out in one text the civil, political, economic and
social rights of European citizens and all persons resident in the EU. In this
context, the Annual Report sets out some of the most significant events and
developments relevant to fundamental rights during 2009.
Equality bodies and complaints mechanisms
The Racial Equality Directive (Council Directive 2000/43/EC ), the most
important piece of EU legislation combating discrimination on grounds of
‘race’ and ethnic origin, was adopted in 2000. The Directive puts Member
States under a legal obligation to designate a body for the promotion of equal
treatment without discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin.
However, a number of Member States have been slow to comply with this
obligation. By the end of 2009 there were still examples where the equality
body was either missing or was so new that it had not had time to become
operationally effective. For many of the equality bodies the low level of human
and financial resources available to them suggests a less than strong
commitment to them by the Member States.
Surveys in 2009 indicate that public awareness of the equality bodies is
generally low, and that among minority groups it is even lower than for the
whole population. The number of complaints of discrimination made to equality
bodies were at a low level in 2009, even though the FRA’s EU-MIDIS victim
survey published in the same year, covering 2008, found that significant
proportions of migrant and minority group members who were interviewed felt
that they had been the victims of discrimination over the preceding 12 months.
Racist violence and crime
Across the EU the collection and public availability of official criminal justice
data on racist crime continues to vary significantly between Member States,
with some publishing no data at all, and only Finland, Sweden and the UK
collecting and publishing comprehensive data on a regular basis. During the
period 2000-2008, 10 of the 12 Member States which collect sufficient criminal
justice data on racist crime to be able to undertake an analysis of trends
experienced an upward trend in recorded racist crime.
The gap in data collection on racist crime in the majority of Member States is
one of the reasons why the FRA carried out the EU-MIDIS survey of migrants
and minorities. The survey’s findings are in contrast with the absence or

Annual Report 2010
14
‘undercount’ of data on racist crime in the majority of EU Member States. For
example, 18 per cent of all Roma interviewees and 18 per cent of all Sub-
Saharan African interviewees in the EU-MIDIS survey indicated that they had
experienced at least one incident of assault, threat or serious harassment in the
last 12 months that they considered to be racially motivated.
Only some Member States collect criminal justice data on crime with an
extremist right-wing motive, and it is clear that the scope of data collection
should be broader than this. The EU-MIDIS data shows clearly that perpetrators
of racist attacks are often ‘ordinary’ people - such as someone from the
neighbourhood, a customer, or a work colleague - whereas members of right-
wing groups were identified as perpetrators in only a limited number of
incidents.
Ethnic discrimination in employment
In 2009 the area of employment continued to be identified as the area of social
life where racial/ethnic discrimination was reported the most. Indirect indicators
of discrimination came from statistical patterns which show inequality between
migrants/minorities and the majority population despite equivalence in
qualifications and other relevant criteria. Direct evidence came from incidents
of discrimination, ranging from the denial of employment opportunities because
of ethnic origin or skin colour, to racist harassment in the workplace. Surveys of
minorities in several countries revealed subjective experiences of discrimination
at work, or when looking for work, and surveys in some countries revealed
negative attitudes on the part of majority population respondents to recruiting or
working with people with immigrant or minority backgrounds.
In some Member States there were job advertisements which were clearly
worded against minority applicants, and in several countries there were
complaints about unnecessary language requirements for jobs, which suggested
the operation of indirect discrimination on grounds of ethnicity. Again this year
there were examples of the effects of ‘discriminatory legislation’ where legally-
resident non-nationals are restricted by law from job opportunities in the public
sector, in this case affecting nurses in a hospital.
Finally, this year there were a great many reports of extreme exploitation of
migrant workers, often made possible by their legal vulnerability. There are
descriptions of insecure workers suffering a range of injustices, including
insults and harassments, having to work extremely long hours in unhealthy
conditions in violation of labour regulations, being paid less than collective
agreements, and denied sickness leave. Workers have had their passports
confiscated and been confined in their sub-standard accommodation without
freedom to leave, or have had the cost of their meagre accommodation and food
deducted from their wages.

Annual Report 2010
15
Ethnic discrimination in housing
Regarding access to accommodation, there are some parallels with the area of
employment. Indirect evidence for ethnic discrimination in this field comes
from statistical patterns of inequality, and direct evidence comes from specific
research projects, including matched pair testing experiments. In both sectors,
openly discriminatory advertisements are a continuing problem.
As highlighted in previous years, Roma and Travellers are the group which is
most consistently disadvantaged in private and public housing. An FRA report
published in 2009 shows that this is a problem across the whole EU, and a
series of reports in 2009 by the international bodies ECRI and CERD on
individual Member States drew attention to the continuing social
marginalisation and discrimination faced in the housing area by Roma in the
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, Poland, Bulgaria, and Finland.
Ethnic discrimination in education
While on a legal basis EU Member States provide open access to education, in
practice, certain groups, like asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, or
language minorities, face many difficulties in accessing quality education. At
the same time, there are some efforts for better and fairer access to education.
In many EU Member States, there is a considerable performance gap between
students with a majority background and students with a migrant or minority
background. These performance gaps can partly be explained through school
systems that do not counterbalance socioeconomic differences and differences
in language knowledge. Differences in performance can, however, also be the
result of segregation in education and discriminatory practices of school
authorities and within schools.
In 2009, a range of support measures and good practice activities in the
education sector were initiated by governmental institutions and civil society
organisations in Member States. Measures and activities included: intercultural
teacher training and support material; teacher training on and new approaches to
human rights education and Holocaust education; training of Roma as teaching
assistants; educational and language learning support for migrants, minorities,
asylum seekers, refugees, and pupils with language or learning difficulties,
integration projects in schools; desegregation projects; awareness raising
projects on diversity and anti-discrimination; allocation of education or
traineeship places for Roma.
Ethnic discrimination in healthcare
People who suffer the most problems in exercising their right to healthcare are
irregular migrants and rejected asylum seekers, and also the Roma. Irregular
migrants should in theory receive free access to emergency healthcare, and

Annual Report 2010
16
asylum seekers should have access to emergency health care that includes at
least essential treatment of illness. However, in practice there may be obstacles
in accessing healthcare. For one thing, medical personnel can act as gatekeepers
restricting the access to medical care of irregular migrants and asylum seekers,
and there are examples reported of undocumented migrants being denounced to
the police by medical staff when trying to access emergency care.
Furthermore, there can be bureaucratic obstacles in accessing healthcare by
refugees and asylum seekers, including complex application procedures and
lengthy processing times. There is also a problem of a lack of awareness of the
right of access to healthcare among such vulnerable groups, and also among
regular migrants, caused by a lack of understanding of the medical system in the
host country and insufficient communication skills.
In countries with significant Roma population, there have been reports of
discrimination in their access to healthcare, and in the FRA 2009 EU-MIDIS
survey, 17 per cent of Roma respondents felt that they had been discriminated
against by healthcare personnel in the past 12 months.
There are practical obstacles in accessing healthcare services in culturally
diverse populations, where language problems or a lack of culturally sensitive
provision of health services may lead to cases of direct and indirect
discrimination. In some countries there are problems in the availability of
interpreters, and some Member States still do not make available general
information on the healthcare system in foreign languages.
Sexual orientation discrimination
The previous Annual Report described the two major reports published by the
FRA in 2009 on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, highlighting,
amongst other things, the inadequacies and inconsistencies in legislation to
protect LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people from
discrimination, and the ways that such discrimination has an impact on their
lives. This year’s Annual Report can report both positive and negative
developments in various EU Member States. For example, in Sweden, Austria
and Slovenia there were government actions or legal rulings in 2009 which
strengthened the rights of same sex civil partners. In Lithuania, Italy and
Romania, on the other hand, there were actions or rulings in the other direction.
Such developments can have implications for the enjoyment of rights, as
conferred by EU law.
Disability
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was adopted
by UN General Assembly resolution 61/106 of 13 December 2006, and it came
into force on 3 May 2008. At the end of 2009, it had been ratified by 12 EU
Member States, and a further three more in 2010. At Member State level, a

Annual Report 2010
17
number of legislative initiatives were taken in order to comply with the
Convention. However, no agreement was reached during 2009 regarding a
European Commission proposal for a new ‘horizontal’ directive which would
protect against discrimination outside employment on grounds of disability, as
well as on grounds of religion or belief, age and sexual orientation.
Positive action measures
In the context of the inequality, exclusion or discrimination faced by various
social groups in the EU, there were a number of positive action initiatives
undertaken in many Member States in 2009. Positive action measures regarding
the Roma, for example, are consistent with the recommendation of the UN
CERD that State parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination “take special measures to promote the
employment of Roma in the public administration and institutions, as well as in
private companies”. One example from 2009 was in Hungary, where the Prime
Minister announced a government plan to offer 200 positions to experts of
Roma origin in public administration from January 2010.
In the Netherlands the imposition of positive duties on the employer to create an
atmosphere favouring equal treatment became stronger in 2009, in the context
of the existing policy objective that the proportion of personnel in the public
sector with an ethnic minority background (‘allochthonous population’) should
eventually rise by 50 per cent. Furthermore, half of trainee posts in civil
services have been allocated to ethnic minorities. In the UK the establishment of
a new House of Commons committee was agreed, with the task of producing
recommendations for rectifying the under-representation of women, ethnic
minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons.
In Cyprus strong positive action in the area of disability was put on the agenda
in 2009, with the opening of discussions on a law introducing special provisions
for the hiring of persons with disabilities in the public sector, which sets out
quotas in the employment of persons with disabilities.
In two countries, Constitutional Court decisions upheld the principle of positive
action. In Spain, the court rejected the claim that the establishment of gender
quotas on electoral lists violated the constitutional principles of merit and
ability. In Slovenia, the court similarly dismissed a claim that an Act which sets
a minimum proportion of employees with disabilities constitutes a
disproportionate interference with employers’ freedom. These cases illustrate a
growing recognition that ‘merit’ may be a falsely neutral criterion, and that
positive action measures may be required for the effective application of the
principle of non-discrimination.

Annual Report 2010
18
The rights of the child
The year 2009, which marked the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child, showed that children all too frequently
remain in a vulnerable position with regard to their basic rights. In spite of the
obligation under the Convention for all the States Parties to respect and ensure
the rights to each child within their jurisdiction and without discrimination of
any kind, children have often been deprived of the enjoyment of their basic
rights, such as access to education, as a result of various forms of
discrimination, not only on the grounds of their own circumstances, but also
even on those of their parents or legal guardians.
At the level of the EU, the Swedish Presidency was marked by the high
relevance given to the Rights of the Child in the adoption of the new multi-
annual programme of the European Council – the Stockholm Programme -
which defines EU work in the area of justice and home affairs for the period
2010–2014. The programme emphasises that the rights of the child concern all
EU policies, and that they must be systematically and strategically taken into
account with a view to ensuring an integrated approach.
Although, among the EU Member States, only Denmark and Greece have
ratified the 2007 Council of Europe Convention against sexual abuse and sexual
exploitation of children – an instrument signed by all but the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Latvia and Malta – significant progress was made in a number of EU
Member States in the protection of children’s rights, sometimes in anticipation
of the ratification of this convention.
Immigration and detention
The conditions of detention in centres for irregular migrants and asylum seekers
were still a major source of concern in 2009. For instance, in June 2009 in
Denmark a report concerning the living conditions of rejected asylum seekers
contained a number of recommendations for improvement. Amnesty
International released a statement concerning the treatment of immigrants
detained under the Aliens Act in Finland, calling for detention to be a measure
of last resort. Médecins Sans Frontières published a critical briefing paper in
2009 on the conditions in detention centres for undocumented migrants and
asylum seekers in Malta, and the European Court of Human Rights found in
two cases (at least one concerning an asylum applicant) that the conditions of
detention in Greece amounted to degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of
the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment). The number of children detained in such centres is rising in
certain countries, as documented in a Dutch report published in 2009. Concerns
over the detention of children were also highlighted in other countries.

Annual Report 2010
19
Employment of irregular workers
A number of developments took place in 2009 in this area at EU level. The
Employers Sanctions Directive (2009/52/EC) provided for minimum standards
on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country
nationals, and must be implemented by July 2011.Reports show various reasons
why migrant workers (whether illegally staying or not) may find it difficult to
challenge exploitative employment conditions. For one thing, the denunciation
of employers of illegally-staying third-country nationals is made difficult
because such illegally employed people risk being expelled from the national
territory if they contact the authorities. They face the same difficulty if they
seek to complain before courts about their employment conditions, even where
they are formally allowed to do so.
Therefore the Member States should make full use of the possibilities offered
under Article 13(4) of the Employers Sanctions Directive which obliges
Member States to define the conditions under which they may grant temporary
residence permits in a similar way as to that already done for victims of
trafficking under Directive 2004/81. It is also essential that the Member States
set up effective complaint mechanisms by which third-country nationals could
lodge complaints directly or through designated third parties such as trade
unions or other associations. In Belgium, NGOs have proposed that inspections
with the aim of combating abuses concerning labour legislation would no longer
lead to the relevant office of the Ministry of the Interior being notified of the
presence of illegally-staying workers. This would follow the practice in Finland,
where the Occupational Safety and Health authorities are not required to inform
the police of abusive employment practices, including where victims are third-
country nationals working without a permit.
In Germany, there are examples of trade unions supporting irregular migrants
by negotiating with employers without relying on courts and thus avoiding the
risk that the worker will be expelled as a result of filing a complaint. In other
countries it may be possible on the basis of existing legislation to grant
exceptional residence permissions to aliens for collaborating with justice, as is
done for victims of human trafficking.
Common European Asylum System
During 2008-2009 the Commission made a number of proposals regarding the
establishment of the second phase of the Common European Asylum System,
and related issues, in order to ensure better and more harmonised standards of
protection. The amending the Eurodac Regulation proposal aims at ensuring a
more efficient use of the Eurodac database and that data protection concerns are
better addressed
The proposal amending the Dublin Regulation includes new rules on detention
of persons under the Dublin procedure and a possibility of suspending transfers

Annual Report 2010
20
to a Member State in cases where that Member State is facing particular
difficulties with regard to its reception capacities due to large numbers of
asylum seekers, or when it does not comply with EU asylum standards as set
out in the relevant instruments. The rules in relation to family members and
unaccompanied minors are amended, to benefit the persons concerned.
The proposal amending the Reception Conditions Directive introduces new
rules on detention, which draw on the UNHCR guidelines, and enhance
standards as regards addressing the needs of vulnerable persons, access to
employment, material support and health care. The proposals amending the
Asylum Procedures and Qualifications Directives (October 2009) suggest
among other things, a stronger wording as regards gender-based persecution, an
approximation of rights between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary
protection, the introduction of a general principle of automatic suspensive effect
in line with developing case law and reducing the grounds on which an
individual asylum interview can be omitted.
In May 2010 the Commission's proposal for a Regulation establishing a
European Asylum Support Office (EASO) was formally adopted. The EASO
will play a role in approximating Member States asylum practices and will be
fully operational one year after the entry into force of the relevant Regulation.
.Regarding most of the above proposals, discussions in the European Parliament
and the Council were ongoing during 2010. Overall, the Commission proposals
can be welcomed from a fundamental rights perspective.
Information society, respect for private life and protection of
personal data
The European Union, which has played a significant role in driving the
development and introduction of national data protection laws in number of
legal systems in the EU, continues to promote the development of international
standards for personal data protection. This is one of the main goals set up by
the Union in the Stockholm Programme adopted in December 2009. The
programme calls for the introduction of a comprehensive protection scheme
regarding privacy and personal data protection. In the past two years, the EU
institutions and bodies launched various initiatives, the aim of which was to
focus on specific issues on data protection, including rights awareness, the fight
against cyber crime and social networking.
Several major legal developments have taken place at the national level within
the last year or so, aimed primarily at incorporating basic principles of data
protection into various laws (e.g. employment law, law on electronic
communication networks, etc.). One of the most significant developments,
however, occurred on the issue of data retention. In 2009, the European Court
of Justice upheld the legal basis on which the Data Retention Directive was
adopted. The European Commission launched infringement proceedings against

Annual Report 2010
21
several Member States who delayed the transposition of the Directive, and
obtained favourable judgments from the ECJ against them. Furthermore, in the
cases of Romania and Germany the Constitutional Court declared the national
law transposing the Directive to be unconstitutional. A certain degree of
discontent by civil society, as well as telecommunication companies and
internet service providers about the effects of the data retention law, has been
expressed in several countries.

Annual Report 2010
22
Introduction
Implications of the Lisbon Treaty
The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon at the end of 2009 has significantly
strengthened the protection of fundamental rights at European level. In fact, the
Treaty offers a set of innovations concerning better lawmaking, values and
access to justice – all of which are of immediate relevance to fundamental
rights.
Firstly, the new European Union (EU) treaties underline the value foundation of
the Union. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has become legally binding.
The Charter sets out in a single text, for the first time in the EU’s history, the
whole range of civil, political, economic and social rights of European citizens
and all persons resident in the EU. It makes explicit that the Union “shall
respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity”1
and that any discrimination
based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic
features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership
of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation” is
prohibited.2
Under the Lisbon Treaty, EU primary law makes, for the first time ever,
reference to “persons belonging to minorities”3
and “membership of national
minorit[ies]”.4
According to Article 2 of the revised Treaty of the European
Union (TEU), the Union is “founded on the … respect for human rights,
including the rights of persons belonging to minorities”. The Member States’
representatives have thus also confirmed that the rights of persons belonging to
minorities are values that “are common to the Member States in a society in
which pluralism … prevail[s]”.5
This does not mean that the EU is equipped with a competence to legislate on
“minority rights” in the stricter sense. Nor does the Treaty provide any
definition of what a minority is. The new and rather prominent references can,
however, be perceived as clearly indicating that EU primary law recognises that
belonging to a minority is a relevant factor to the individual situation of human
beings. The many different contexts of belonging to ethnic, linguistic, religious
or any other sort of minority present specific challenges, and call for different
1
See Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
2
See Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
3
See Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon.
4
See Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
5
See Article 2 of the TEU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Annual Report 2010
23
legal and political responses, over some of which (but far from all) the EU has
powers to act.6
The EU treaties also aim to provide an essential foundation for better
lawmaking, particularly in the area of anti-discrimination, where the Union is
set under a new horizontal obligation: “In defining and implementing its
policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on
sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation”.7
This obligation applies without any exception with regard to EU
law and it will therefore be important to constantly remind the EU institutions
of this new explicit obligation. In addition, the Treaty of Lisbon calls on the EU
institutions to “maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with
representative associations and civil society”.8
The European Commission is
thus explicitly tasked to “carry out broad consultations with parties concerned in
order to ensure that the Union’s actions are coherent and transparent”.9
The newly-introduced citizen initiative will add a new facet of participatory
democracy alongside that of representative democracy at EU level. It may foster
greater transnational debate about fundamental rights-related issues in Europe.
In the future, one million citizens – less than a quarter of one per cent of all EU
citizens – can invite the Commission to submit “any appropriate proposal on
matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the
purpose of implementing the Treaties”.10
Better lawmaking would profit from the EU institutions making use of
independent expert knowledge, especially when fundamental rights issues are at
stake. In this context, it may be useful to remember that the European Council
invited the EU institutions “to make full use of the expertise of the European
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and to consult, where appropriate, with
the Agency, in line with its mandate, on the development of policies and
legislation with implications for fundamental rights”.11
The new EU treaties substantially extend access to judicial protection. This
implies that police and judicial cooperation in the area of criminal law – an area
of most obvious relevance for the protection of fundamental rights – is now
covered by the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
although this will not apply during the first five years of entry into force of the
Lisbon Treaty. The common foreign and security policy remains beyond the
Court ambit; however, the Court is granted jurisdiction for reviewing the
6
See European Parliament resolution on the protection of minorities and anti-discrimination
policies in an enlarged Europe (2005/2008(INI)).
7
Art. 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, replacing the former
Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty)).
8
Art. 11 Para 2 TEU.
9
Art. 11 Para. 3 TEU.
10
Art. 11 Para 4 TEU.
11
See European Commission (2009) The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe
serving and protecting the citizen, Brussels: European Commission, p. 12.

Annual Report 2010
24
legality of decisions of the Council providing for “restrictive measures against
natural and legal persons”.12
Moreover, a general clause establishes in primary
law a sort of accelerated procedure before the Court if a preliminary procedure
concerns “a person in custody” – in such cases the Court “shall act with a
minimum of delay”.13
The Lisbon Treaty also provides for the accession of the EU to the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).14
While the Union's system for the
protection of fundamental rights is supplemented and enhanced by the
incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into its primary law, as a
result of acceding to the ECHR the Union will be integrated into its
fundamental rights protection system, in addition to the internal protection of
these rights by the case law of the Court of Justice, and will be submitted to the
external control provided by the ECHR and by the European Court of Human
Rights in Strasbourg. This will enhance consistency between the Strasbourg and
the Luxembourg human rights systems,. Accession to the ECHR will afford
citizens protection against the action of the Union similar to that which they
already enjoy against action by all the Member States, thereby improving
judicial protection of fundamental rights in Europe for the individuals. This is
all the more worthwhile because the Member States have transferred substantial
powers to the Union. The accession will also enhance the credibility of the
Union in the eyes of third countries which it regularly calls upon in its bilateral
reports to respect the ECHR..
The outline of the Annual Report
In the context of these recent and significant changes in the legal landscape of
Europe, the Annual Report of the European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights (FRA) covers events and developments in the area of fundamental rights
in the European Union for the year 2009.
The FRA Annual Report is based primarily on the research and data collection
activities of the Agency. It draws on FRA’s primary data collection, including
the findings of the EU-MIDIS survey – the Agency’s European Union
Minorities and Discrimination Survey published in 2009. The survey
interviewed 23,500 people with an ethnic minority background across the EU
27 Member States in 2008 and is the largest EU-wide survey of its kind on
minorities’ experiences of discrimination, racist victimisation and policing. The
report also includes information provided by the Agency’s two EU-wide
information-gathering groups – the RAXEN group of National Focal Points
(NFPs) and the FRALEX legal experts group. The RAXEN group provides
material that falls under the general heading of racism, xenophobia and related
intolerance, while the FRALEX group supplies more legal information under a
broader range of topics of fundamental rights. In each Member State the
12
Art. 275 Para. 2 TFEU.
13
Art. 267 TFEU.
14
Art. 6 Para. 2 TEU.

Annual Report 2010
25
RAXEN or FRALEX groups collect data under common headings supplied by
the Agency, in cooperation with various national organisations and actors, and
in accordance with specific and common guidelines. National reports are
produced for each Member State, and the data and information provided by
these national reports is checked for accuracy by 27 liaison officers from the
governments of each Member State. The national reports and resulting EU
overviews provide the core of the material within the Annual Report.
During 2009–2010, the FRA has researched and published a number of reports
on subjects that feed into the information given in this Annual Report. These
include reports on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, the
experiences and awareness of victims of racial/ethnic discrimination, the
housing conditions of Roma, the issue of ethnic profiling, the rights of the child,
child trafficking, and the problems of separated and asylum-seeking children. In
addition, in May 2010 the FRA issued a series of four reports on strengthening
the fundamental rights architecture in the EU, focusing on national human
rights institutions in the EU Member States15
, data protection and the role of
authorities in the field16
, rights awareness and equality bodies17
, as well as on
the impact of the Racial Equality Directive18
.
This year’s FRA Annual Report is divided into nine chapters. Chapter 1 covers
information on equality bodies and complaints mechanisms under the Racial
Equality Directive, followed by an outline of developments in the area of racist
violence and crime in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 focuses information on racism and
discrimination in various areas of social life – employment, housing, education
and healthcare – and then includes a more general section dealing with issues
relating to migrants and minorities in other areas of social life. Chapter 4 looks
at developments relevant to equality and anti-discrimination that have not
already been covered in the preceding sections, including discrimination based
on sex, disability, age and sexual orientation. The following chapters cover
developments in 2009 which fall under the headings of the FRA’s Multiannual
Framework (MAF) – the document that sets out the thematic areas of the
Agency’s activities in line with the priorities of the European Union in the field
of human rights over the coming years. Chapter 5 highlights developments in
the field of the rights of the child and protection of children. Chapter 6 then
examines issues related to the integration of immigrants, and visa and border
control, followed by an analysis of developments in the field of access to justice
and victim compensation in Chapter 7. Participation of citizens of the EU in the
Union’s democratic functioning is explored in Chapter 8, while an overview is
15
FRA (2010) National Human Rights Institutions in the EU Member State, Luxembourg:
Office for Publications of the European Union.
16
FRA (2010) Data Protection in the European Union: the role of National Data Protection,
Luxembourg: Office for Publications of the European Union.
17
FRA (2010) Rights Awareness and Equality Bodies, Data in Focus Report 3, Luxembourg:
Office for Publications of the European Union.
18
FRA (2010) The Impact of the Racial Equality Directive: Views of Trade Unions and
Employers in the European Union, Luxembourg: Office for Publications of the European
Union.

Annual Report 2010
26
provided on the subject of the information society, respect for private life and
the protection of personal data in Chapter 9.
Finally, a new feature of this year’s Annual Report is the inclusion of an Annex
indicating the current state of play regarding the acceptance by Member States
of international human rights instruments, namely conventions of the United
Nations and agreements of the Council of Europe. It is anticipated that this
Annex will be included and updated in each subsequent FRA Annual Report.
Throughout this report there are references to examples of ‘good practice’. The
identification of examples of ‘good practice’ acknowledges the value of a
practice and contributes to supporting a culture of continuous progress.
However the identification as ‘good practice’ does not imply that the respective
practice has been directly scrutinised in depth by the Agency.

Annual Report 2010
27
1. Equality bodies and complaints
mechanisms under the Racial
Equality Directive
The Racial Equality Directive19
is the most important piece of EU legislation
combating discrimination or grounds of ‘race’ and ethnic origin. It was adopted
in 2000, and prohibits discrimination in the areas of employment, education,
social protection, including social security and healthcare, and in access to
goods and services, including housing. This section provides an overview of the
implementation of the Racial Equality Directive, with a particular focus on
complaints mechanisms. Member States are under a legal obligation to ensure
compliance with directives,20
and in the case of the Racial Equality Directive,
prominently to “designate a body or bodies for the promotion of equal treatment
of all persons without discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic
origin.”21
While EU Member States are under an obligation to establish Equality Bodies
in accordance with Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive – something
which, by the end of 2009, Poland still had not done and which Malta did not
appear to have done in full – the degree of independence and the resources at
the disposal of these bodies varies considerably across the EU. The Czech
Republic only in 2009 passed legislation intended to comply with the Directive,
with an equality body in place as of 1 December 2009.22
In Luxembourg the
equality body became operational only in late 200823
and in Spain in early
2009.
The European Commission, being responsible for ensuring correct
implementation of the Directive by Member States, has sent what is termed
“reasoned opinions” to about two thirds of the Member States, and four
additional formal notices, indicating that transposition of the Directive was
unsatisfactory. (If the Commission after a period of negotiation is unable to
press for correct transposition of the legislation at the national level voluntarily,
it may ultimately resort to judicial proceedings before the Court of Justice of the
European Union (through the Lisbon Treaty, previously the European Court of
Justice (ECJ)24
).
19
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000, implementing the principle of equal treatment
on grounds of racial and ethnic origin (OJ L 180 of 19.07.2000).
20
Art. 249 para. 3 TEU.
21
Art. 13(1).
22
<www.psp.cz/sqw/hlasy.sqw?G=50202&o=5> (04.09.2009).
23
Law of 28 November 2006.
24
(Art 228 TEU).

Annual Report 2010
28
A lack of adequate human and financial resources is a major problem for the
equality body in a majority of countries, including Austria, Cyprus, Estonia,
Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta (where the Equality Body
does not have jurisdiction to act in relation to racial discrimination in
employment)25
, Romania and the Slovak Republic. And the independence of
some equality bodies, such as the Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea
Discriminării [National Council on Combating Discrimination (NCCD)] in
Romania, is a concern to a number of NGOs. In Ireland, the cut of 43 per cent
in the budget of the Equality Authority which took effect in 2009 led to the
resignation of the CEO of the Authority, and an alliance of non-governmental
organisations, the Equality & Rights Alliance (ERA) organised a campaign
against the cuts, although its complaint to the European Commission to the
effect that Ireland was in breach of European equality law26
was not upheld.
Some progress is however being made: in October 2009, the Court of Justice of
the European Union closed infringement proceedings against Austria and Italy
after national legislation had been changed. Problems in Austria had concerned
the definition of harassment, lack of appropriate sanctions in cases of
discriminatory dismissals, and failure to transpose rules on victimisation. Italy
had problems with two of these aspects, harassment and victimisation, and in
addition with the burden of proof.
The 2008 Feryn case remains the only one that the Court of Justice (then the
ECJ) has delivered interpreting the Racial Equality Directive.27
The Court
provided a broad interpretation of ‘direct discrimination’,28
so that it
encompasses simply the publication of a discriminatory employment policy (an
unwillingness to recruit an employee of a certain ethnic or racial origin) even in
the absence of an identifiable complainant.29
In the language of the Court, such
publication would be discriminatory if it ‘declares publicly that it will not
recruit employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin, something which is clearly
likely to strongly dissuade certain candidates from submitting their candidature
and, accordingly, to hinder their access to the labour market’ (paragraph 25).30
25
In Malta, the Department of Industrial and Employment Relations (DIER), although not an
equality body, is empowered by law to investigate, both ex officio and also on the basis of a
complaint, alleged cases of discrimination in employment on a number of grounds, including
race.
26
See
http://www.eracampaign.org/uploads/Letter%20to%20Mr%20Spidla%20re%20Equality%20
Authority%2024th%20April.doc
27
Case C-54/07, judgment of 10 July 2008, available at:
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-54/07
(see European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2009) Annual Report 2009,
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, p. 71).
28
The directive also covers indirect discrimination, although as yet there has been no case law
on this.
29
In relation to Article 2(2)(a) of the directive.
30
The burden of proof was also reversed, see paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Court ruling. See,
however, the appeal of the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) of

Annual Report 2010
29
1.1. The level of awareness
The special Eurobarometer on Discrimination in the EU in 2009 reveals a
number of concerns. Only a third of EU citizens believe they know their rights
related to non-discrimination or harassment. This is consistent with the situation
in the preceding year. The difference between the Member States is however
quite varied, with knowledge of their rights ranging from 63 per cent to 16, with
Finland, the UK, Sweden, and Malta at the top with more than 40 per cent
awareness and Austria and Bulgaria at the bottom with 16 and 21 per cent
respectively.31
Compared with the results from the corresponding Eurobarometer in 2008,
some Member States have seen a marked increase in awareness while others a
decrease. At the positive end of the scale, the UK, France, Sweden and Ireland
have increases of 6-8 percentage points. Poland, Portugal, and Greece have a
decrease from 2008 of 8-12 percentage points.32
There is a strong link between
the level of education of the respondent and awareness of rights.33
Victims of discrimination or harassment, according to the Eurobarometer, are
not especially keen on reporting this to equality bodies. A third of the
respondents preferred reporting such incidents to the police authorities, while
only one eighth (13%) indicated a primary preference for reporting to a body for
the promotion of equal treatment.34
However, it should be noted that in the case
of harassment incidents it may be more logical for a victim to report them to the
police.
Looking at the results by Member State the situation is indeed diverse, with
almost three quarters (74%) being willing to report to an equality body in
Sweden and more than half the respondents in the Netherlands and Belgium
(53 and 51 respectively). At the other end of the spectrum, with only a quarter
or less, Spain, Malta, Italy, and Finland (18, 21, 25, and 25 per cent
respectively).35
10 September 2008 (Case T-284/06 Gualtieri v Commission), Case C-485/08 P; and C-73/08,
Opinion of Advocate General Scharpston, 25 June 2009, paragraph 45 and C-101/08, Opinion
of Advocate General Trstenjak, 30 June 2009, paragraph 121.
31
Special Eurobarometer 317 (Novembre 2009) Discrimination in the EU in 2009, Brussels:
TNS Opinion et Social, pp. 34-35, QE10.
32
Special Eurobarometer 317 (Novembre 2009) Discrimination in the EU in 2009 Brussels:
TNS Opinion et Social, p. 36.
33
TNS Opinion et Social, p. 37.
34
TNS Opinion et Social, p. 38, QE15a.
35
Special Eurobarometer 317 (Novembre 2009) Discrimination in the EU in 2009, (Novembre
2009) p. 41, QE15.

Annual Report 2010
30
The FRA’s EU-MIDIS report,36
launched on Human Rights Day, 10 December
2009, at the FRA Fundamental Rights Conference in Stockholm, shows that the
awareness of equality bodies generally is lower among minority groups than in
the population as a whole. According to EU-MIDIS, less than 10 per cent of
particular minority groups have heard of the respective equality bodies in
Luxembourg, Greece, Cyprus, and Slovenia (5, 5, 6, and 9 per cent
respectively). However, in some Member States, particular minority groups
have a relatively high level of awareness of equality bodies. The Netherlands,
Estonia, Poland, Belgium, Czech Republic, and Sweden all show more than
50 per cent awareness (71, 65, 59, 58, 58, and 55 per cent respectively). The
average level of unawareness of a named equality body (or bodies, as
applicable) across the EU27 according to EU-MIDIS is 60 per cent (see Figure
1.1).
Figure 1.1 Ethnic minority/migrant respondents who have heard of at least one of
up to three named equality bodies in their country, EU27 (%) – EU-MIDIS results
Source: FRA (2010) ‘Rights Awareness and Equality Bodies’, Data in Focus
Report 3, Figure 8 (EU-MIDIS survey questions B2a-B2c37
)
The knowledge of any of the named equality bodies that would support
discriminated persons among some minority groups is alarmingly low. In some
EU Member States, the EU-MIDIS survey recorded levels exceeding 90 per
cent of unawareness. The average level of unawareness across the EU27 is 80
per cent (see Figure 1.2).
36
FRA (2009) EU-MIDIS Main Results Report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union, available at: http://www.fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/eu-
midis/eumidis_main_results_report_en.htm; see generally www.fra.europa.eu/eu-midis.
37
The survey questionnaire is available at: www.fra.europa.eu/eu-midis.
Yes, has heard
of at least one
37%
No, has not
heard of any of
them
60%
Don't
know/Refused
3%

Annual Report 2010
31
Figure 1.2 Awareness of any organisation that can support people who have been
discriminated against (% of all respondents)
Report 3, Figure 7 (EU-MIDIS survey question A3)
The low awareness of where to complain is exacerbated by a feeling of
disillusionment: almost two thirds of the respondents in the EU-MIDIS survey
did not report discrimination due to a sense that nothing would happen or
change by doing so (see Figure 1.3).
Yes
16%
No
80%
Don't
know/Refused
3%

Annual Report 2010
32
Figure 1.3 Reasons for not reporting discrimination in nine areas38 (%)
Report 3, Figure 12 (EU-MIDIS survey questions CA5-CI5)
In 2009 the FRA carried out a research project amongst the social partners of
the EU to investigate their level of awareness of the Racial Equality Directive
and the corresponding national legislation.39
More than 300 interviews were
carried out with representatives of employers and trade unions in 27 Member
States. The study found that awareness of the legislation was generally much
higher, and evaluation of it more positive, in the older EU15 Member States
than among the EU12 which joined after 2004 and that evaluations were
generally more positive amongst trade unions than amongst employers.
Knowledge of the equality bodies varied considerably among employers and
trade unions. Whereas some collaborated strongly with their equality body,
others had very little awareness of equality bodies, and some even saw them in
some ways as a threat. Some respondents denied the existence of any problem
of racism or ethnic discrimination relevant to their own sphere of work.
38
These nine areas fall under the themes of employment, education, housing, healthcare/social
services and consumer services.
39
FRA (2010) The Impact of the Racial Equality Directive: Views of Trade Unions and
Employers in the European Union, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
63
40
36
26
21
16
14
10
4
3
Nothing would happen/change by
reporting
Too trivial/not worth reporting it‐ it is
normal, happens all the time
Did not know how to go about
reporting/where to report
Concerned about negative
consequences/contrary to my interest
Inconvenience/too much bureaucracy or
trouble/no time
Dealt with the problem themselves/with
help from family/friends
Fear of intimidation from perpetrators if
reported
Other
Not reported because of language
difficulties/insecurities
Residence permit problems‐ so could not
report

Annual Report 2010
33
1.2. Complaints data from equality bodies
Article 13(2) of the Racial Equality Directive requires Member States to ensure
that equality bodies have a mandate including ”providing independent
assistance to victims of discrimination in pursuing their complaints about
discrimination”. Complaints statistics have been collected by the RAXEN
National Focal Points of the FRA during 2009, a majority being the annual
numbers for 2008, but some also inclusive of data up until October 2009.40
The
data provided are not easily comparable given the varied nature of the equality
bodies. As noted in previous Annual Reports, a higher level of registered
complaints is not necessarily a sign of high levels of discrimination. On the
contrary, given the extent of subjectively experienced discrimination in all
Member States, as noted in the EU-MIDIS survey, a higher number of
complaints rather reflects that awareness is higher and that there is an efficient
and credible mechanism in place.41
In almost all Member States, the number of
officially registered complaints is remarkably low, ranging from virtually none,
through a few dozens or hundreds. There are exceptions such as France (Haute
autorité de lutte contre les discriminations et pour l’égalité (HALDE)) which
registered some 10,500 cases in 2009.42
Other Member States with equality
bodies receiving more than a few hundred complaints include Belgium,
Ireland, and Sweden. An approximate EU average would be around 350
complaints.
According to complaint statistics,43
there is an increase in complaints based on
ethnic discrimination in several Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, and the Equality Commission for
Northern Ireland, in the UK. In none of the 27 Member States however are the
changes more dramatic than the 25 per cent increase noted by the HALDE,
France.
In Sweden a new equality body was established which makes any trend in the
number of complaints very difficult to identify, but the new equality body is
receiving a relatively high number of complaints.44
Denmark also saw a
revision of its complaints mechanism in 2009, with a new entity being given the
mandate under the directive. The case is similar for the United Kingdom,
where the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) took over the
responsibilities for issues of racial discrimination from the then equality body,
the Commission for Racial Equality, at the end of 2007. Therefore, any changes
in the numbers of cases are not particularly meaningful, also for reasons of the
very low numbers involved. Equality bodies in other Member States similarly
40
Comparisons between available data from the Member States also show the great need for
accurate and comparative data delivered timely to the public.
41
See generally www.fra.europa.eu/eu-midis.
42
See HALDE (2009) Rapport annuel 2009, Paris: HALDE, available at: http://halde.fr/rapport-
annuel/2009/.
43
As collected by the RAXEN NFPs during 2009
44
As indicated in the half year report by the Equality Ombudsman www.do.se.

Annual Report 2010
34
deal with so few cases (less than 20) that trends are not easily discernible, such
as Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and
Slovenia.
Equality bodies in yet other Member States show a minor decrease in
complaints, such as Finland, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, and the
Netherlands. But given the relatively low number of cases, the change is
probably not indicative of any major trend.
The Agency’s EU-MIDIS survey shows that among the members of minority
groups surveyed, an average of 30 per cent (ranging from 3 to 64 per cent) felt
they had experienced discrimination during the last 12 months.45
Based on the
extent of perceived discrimination, the number of complaints ought to be much
higher.
45
European Union, p. 36, Figure 2.1, available at: www.fra.europa.eu/eu-midis.

Annual Report 2010
35
2. Racist violence and crime
2.1. Effective means to assess the extent
and nature of the problem
Across the EU the collection and public availability of official criminal justice
data on racist crime continues to vary significantly between Member States,
with some publishing no data and only a select few collecting and publishing
comprehensive data on a regular basis (Finland, Sweden and the UK).
The persistent gap in criminal justice data collection on racist crime in the
majority of Member States is one of the reasons why the FRA carried out the
EU-MIDIS survey mentioned in Chapter 1. This is the first EU-wide survey to
collect comparable data on the experiences of racist crime of a sample of 23,500
people from selected ethnic minority and immigrant groups, the findings of
which were published in 2009. The survey’s results, which are based on a
random sample, highlight the extent to which official data only shows the ‘tip of
the iceberg’ when it comes to the real extent of unreported and unrecorded
racist crime. The survey also presents detailed findings about the nature of these
crimes.
This chapter briefly reports on publicly available data on racist crime with
respect to trends, limited to a minority of Member States that collect sufficient
data for analysis, and contrasts this information with some key results from EU-
MIDIS.
2.2. Overall trends in officially recorded racist
crime
Table 2.1 indicates trends in criminal justice data on racist crime,46
which are
based on the most recent publicly available government data. When looking at
official criminal justice data on racist crime, direct comparisons should not be
made between data gathered in different Member States. This is because
information is reported and recorded differently in each country. However,
looking at fluctuations in recorded crime within a Member State can serve to
highlight patterns in both manifestations of racist crime and changes in
recording practices (while acknowledging that Member States with low absolute
figures tend to show the most significant percentage changes from year to year).
With this in mind, Table 2.1 shows the following:
46
Encompassing a range of incidents and crimes, which variously cover racism, xenophobia,
anti-Semitism and related crimes such as incitement to racial hatred and violence.

Annual Report 2010
36
 During the period 2000-2008, 10 of the 12 Member States which publish
sufficient criminal justice data on racist crime to be able to undertake an
analysis of trends, experienced an upward trend in recorded racist crime. The
Czech Republic experienced a downward trend, and Poland’s overall trend
remained constant for the period for which data is available.
 Looking only at the most recent year for which data is available – 2007-
200847
– 9 of the 12 Member States which collect sufficient criminal justice
data on racist crime experienced an upward trend in recorded racist crime,
while 3 experienced a downward trend. In the UK the picture was divided, as
England and Wales recorded a downward trend and Scotland a slight
upward trend; therefore, the trend for the UK as a whole is decreasing
(taking into account the relative population sizes of the jurisdictions for
England and Wales, and Scotland).48
47
In the case of Poland, this is 2006-2007.
48
For Northern Ireland, the figures over time were incomplete and did not allow a trend analysis
to be calculated.

Annual Report 2010
37
Table 2.1 : Trends in officially recorded racist crime
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% change
2007–2008
%
change
2000–
2008
Belgium 757
crimes
751 727 848 1021 1224 1359 1310 1147 -12.4% +6.0%
Czech
Republic
364
crimes
452 473 335 364 253 248 196 217 +10.7% -4.3%
Denmark 28
incidents
116 68 53 37 87 96 35 175** +400.0% +87.8%
Germany - 14,725
crimes
12,933 11,576 12,553 15,914 18,142 17,607 20,422 +16.0%
+5.7%
(2001–
2008)
France 903
reports
424 1317 833 1574 979 923 723 864 +19.5% +20.5%
Ireland 72
reports
42 100 62 84 94 173 214 172 -19.6 +24.2%
Austria 450
complaints
528 465 436 322 406 419 752 835 +11.0% +11.6%
Poland 215
crimes
103 94 111 113 172 150 154 -*
+2.7%
(2006-
2007)
+0.2%
(2000-
2007)
Slovakia 35
crimes
40 109 119 79 121 188 155 213 +37.4% +36.3%
Finland 495
crimes
448 364 522 558 669 748 698 1,163** +66.6% +14.2%
Sweden 2,703
crimes
2,785 2,391 2,436 2,414 2,383 2,575 2,813 4,826*** +71.6% +9.7%
England
and
Wales
Scotland
47,701
incidents
Offences
53,121 54,858
1,699
49,344
2,673
54,157
3,097
57,863
3,856
60,651
4,294
61,262
4,474
57,055
4,543
-6.9%
+1.5%
+2.5%
+19.1%
(2002–
2008)
Notes: * Not available. ** Not comparable with previous years due to changes
in the incident counting rules. *** Not comparable with previous years due to
changes in the definition of hate crimes.
In sum, looking at overall long-term trends in recorded racist crime from 2000
to 2008, and between the last two years for which statistics are available, the
picture emerges of a general increase in those 12 Member States where
sufficient data is available for analysis. However, changes in 2008 to data
collection practices in Sweden49
and Finland50
limits the comparability of
internal generated data from previous years for these two countries, and hence
any interpretation of a trend has to be treated with caution. For this reason it is
49
2008 – change in the definition of ‘hate crime’.
50
2008 – not comparable with previous years due to changes in the incident counting system.

Annual Report 2010
38
preferable to focus on long-term trends. At the same time, the significant
increases between 2007 and 2008 in recorded figures for Sweden and Finland
are most likely an indicator that these changes signify improvements in data
collection on racist crime. Put simply: high racist crime figures are not only a
negative indicator of an existing problem with racist crime in a Member State,
but are also a positive indicator that Member States are responding seriously to
the problem of racist crime.
2.3. Trends in anti-Semitism
Only six Member States collect sufficiently robust criminal justice data that
allows a comparison of trends in anti-Semitic crime.51
Table 2.2: Trends in recorded anti-Semitic crime52
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% change
2007–2008
% change
2001–
2008
Austria 3 20 9 17 8 8 15 23 +53.3% +98.3%
France 219 936 601 974 508 571 402 397 -1.2% +41.1%
Germany 1,629 1,594 1,226 1,346 1,682 1,662 1,561 1,496 -4.2% -0.3%
Netherlands* 41 60 50 58 65 108 50 49 -2.0% +9.7%
Sweden 115 131 128 151 111 134 118 159 +34.7% +6.7%
UK 310 350 375 532 455 594 561 541 -3.6% +9.8%
Notes: * Statistics of the Dutch Public Prosecution Service: number of
discriminatory incidents where anti-Semitism was identified.
Looking at Table 2.2, the picture of anti-Semitic crime that emerges is as
follows: between 2001 and 2008 five Member States experienced an overall
upward trend, while between 2007–2008 a mixed picture emerges as two
countries showed an upward trend and four a downward one. In the case of
Austria, the recorded figures are consistently low each year, and therefore the
51
Note: the UK data is from the ‘Community Security Trust’, an independent Jewish
organisation, but is referred to by official government sources in the UK.
52
In addition to the Member States listed here, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Racism
(CEOOR) in Belgium also releases official statistics on complaints of anti-Semitism, but
these statistics go beyond addressing just racist crime. For details please see Anti-Semitism.
Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2008. FRA 2009.

Annual Report 2010
39
notable 53.3% increase between 2007 and 2008, which reflects an increase of
only eight crimes, has to be put in perspective; particularly as this recent
increase impacts significantly on the overall trend in recorded crime for Austria
between 2001 and 2008.
2.4. Trends in right-wing extremism
Only four Member States collect sufficiently robust criminal justice data that
allows for a comparison of trends in crime with an extremist right-wing motive.
Table 2.3: Trends in recorded crime with an extremist right-wing motive
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% change
2007–2008
% change
2000–2008
Austria 291 301 261 264 189 188 204 280 333 +18.9% +3.4%
Germany - 10,054 10,902 10,792 12,051 15,361 17,597 17,176 19894 +15.8%
+10.6%
(2001-2008)
France 207 198 179 148 461 419 301 247 -,53 -17.9%
(2006-2007)
+17.9%
(2000-2007)
Sweden 566 392 324 448 306 292 272 387 667 +72.4% +7.7%
Looking at Table 2.3, a consistent pattern of increases in recorded crime with an
extremist right-wing motive can be noted over both the long and short-term
period, with the exception of France. These increases can reflect both an actual
rise in the activities of right-wing extremists, as well as improvements in the
detection and prosecution of these activities by criminal justice agencies in
these four Member States, particularly with regard to internet-based crime.
53
This figure has not been reported in the latest publication by the French National Consultative
Commission on Human Rights (La lutte contre le racisme et la xénophobie – 2008), and the
French system of recording these crimes has been undergoing a process of revision. However,
the report does indicate that there have been 37 cases of violent crime and 111 threats with
extreme right-wing characteristics. The same report also states that there has been a 16%
increase in right-wing extremist crime between 2007 and 2008.

Annual Report 2010
40
2.5. EU-MIDIS: filling a gap in current
knowledge
As described in Chapter 1, the full results report from the FRA EU-MIDIS
survey was released in December 2009.54
The report presents detailed findings
from 23,500 interviews with selected ethnic minority and immigrant groups,
including respondents’ experiences of racially motivated crime and detailed
information about their most recent experiences of assault, threat and serious
harassment.
The report’s findings are in contrast with the persistent absence or ‘undercount’
by criminal justice data collection mechanisms of racist crime in the majority of
EU Member States; for example:
 18 per cent of all Roma interviewees and 18 per cent of all Sub-Saharan
African interviewees indicated that they had experienced at least one
incident of assault, threat or serious harassment in the last 12 months that
they considered to be racially motivated. Other groups surveyed who
considered they were victims of racially motivated assault, threat or serious
harassment in the last 12 months were North Africans, Turkish, Central and
East Europeans, Russians and former Yugoslavians, although the
percentages among these groups indicating racist victimisation were less
than 10 per cent.
 Findings for specific groups in Member States indicate that more than one in
four respondents from the following groups considered that they were a
victim of ‘racially motivated’ assault, threat or serious harassment in the last
12 months: Roma in the Czech Republic (32%); Somalis in Finland (32%);
Somalis in Denmark (31%); Africans in Malta (29%), and (equally) 26% of
Roma in Greece, Roma in Poland and Sub-Saharan Africans in Ireland.
 Looking only at results for those who said they were victims of assault or
threat in the last 12 months (excluding serious harassment) – 73 per cent of
Roma victims and 70 per cent of Sub-Saharan African victims considered
that the perpetrators of the last incident they experienced targeted them
because of their immigrant or ethnic minority background. This increases to
81 per cent of Roma and 81 per cent of Sub-Saharan Africans if results for
assault, threat and serious harassment are looked at together (the figure
being 67 per cent for Turkish respondents and 61 per cent for North
Africans).
54
European Union, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/home/pub_eu-midis_en.htm.

Annual Report 2010
41
Part 4.3 in the EU-MIDIS Main Results Report55
compares results between the
European Crime and Safety Survey (on the majority population in selected EU
countries) and EU-MIDIS concerning a range of different crimes that allow for
comparison; the findings indicate that minorities are victims of assault or threat
on average more often than the majority population.
Table 2.4: Assault or threat, incident details (EU-MIDIS) (%)
Sub-
Saharan
African CEE
Ex-
Yugoslav
North
African Roma Russian Turkish
% % % % % % %
Rate of victimisation (DD1,
DD2)
Not victimised 83 92 93 84 82 92 91
Victimised past 12 months 9 4 3 9 10 4 3
Victimised past 2-5 years 8 4 4 7 8 4 5
Attributed racial/ethnic
motivation (DD4)
Yes, including the most
recent
70 46 32 46 73 42 60
Yes, but not including the
most recent
2 5 4 10 5 1 5
No 21 39 55 39 18 42 30
Don't know/no opinion 6 9 9 5 4 14 6
Racist or religiously offensive
language used (DD9)
Yes 60 23 36 43 54 27 52
Perpetrators (DD8)
From the same ethnic
group
12 12 22 22 33 18 17
From another ethnic
group
19 27 32 31 12 16 31
From majority 71 57 32 56 60 59 52
Perpetrators included (DD7)
Member of your
household (incl. former)
5 2 5 5 6 16 6
Someone from your
neighbourhood
17 12 23 15 27 11 17
Someone you work
with/colleague
4 4 7 6 3 7 6
55
See http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/eumidis_mainreport_conference-
edition_en_.pdf
.

Annual Report 2010
42
A customer, client or
patient
5 4 7 4 2 10 10
Someone else you know 10 7 12 10 19 15 14
Member of a right-
wing/racist gang
8 6 5 6 12 1 13
Police officer 3 1 4 4 4 7 7
Other public official 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
A stranger (someone else
you didn't know)
58 66 44 52 52 59 43
Source: EU-MIDIS, 2009
Table 2.4, which extracts data from the EU-MIDIS Main Results Report,
presents a breakdown of results in consideration of survey respondents by
‘aggregate groups’ (for example, all Roma or all Sub-Saharan Africans) who
indicated they were a victim of assault or threat (excluding serious harassment)
in the last 12 months and the last 5 years (ranging from 3 per cent (Turkish and
former Yugoslavians) to 10 per cent (Roma) among different aggregate groups
in last 12 months). Victims were then asked whether they considered the most
recent incident or any other incident in the past 12 months to be racially
motivated (ranging from 32 per cent of former Yugoslavians to 73 per cent
among the Roma (in consideration of the latest incident)). This information was
further corroborated by a question asking whether racist or religiously offensive
language was used in relation to the latest incident (ranging from 23 per cent of
Central and East European respondents to 60 per cent of Sub-Saharan Africans).
Further detail was also collected about ‘who’ the perpetrator or perpetrators
were in relation to the last incident in the previous 12 months. For example,
many incidents of assault or threat were committed by strangers and members
of the majority population. However, if the combined results for a range of
perpetrator groups are looked at together, it is apparent that victimisation by
people who are known either by sight or through some other form of
acquaintance is also common, such as someone from the neighbourhood, a
customer, or a work colleague. In comparison, members of right-wing racist
gangs were identified as perpetrators in only a limited number of incidents. The
‘top three’ percentage of victim groups indicating that right-wing racist gangs
were perpetrators was: 13 per cent of Turkish victims, 12 per cent of Roma
victims, and 8 per cent of Sub-Saharan Africans. These results indicate that
incidents of racist crime are not only the preserve of ‘stranger danger’ or right-
wing extremism, and therefore would support efforts to tackle racism as it
manifests itself in ‘everyday’ situations.

Annual Report 2010
43
In 2009, in the UK two BBC reporters of South Asian origin lived for eight
weeks on a housing estate in Bristol, posing as a Muslim married couple. They
recorded themselves being racially abused more than 50 times, with incidents
including muttered insults, verbal abuse, being pelted with stones and glass, and
one physical assault on the man. Most of the abuse came from young children
and teenagers. While the reaction to the ‘husband’ from local people was
unpredictable, the ‘wife’, who wore a headscarf, reported that she was “bullied
and abused just about every time I stepped outside the door”. 56
Of particular concern from the EU-MIDIS study is the finding that perpetrators
of assaults or threats were also identified as police officers and other public
officials by 9 per cent of Turkish, 8 per cent of Russian, and 6 per cent (each) of
Roma, North African and former Yugoslavian victims. These findings indicate
that efforts to tackle sources of racism also need to address the potential role of
State employees, such as the police, who are supposed to uphold the law and
provide a public service for increasingly diverse European societies.
With this in mind, EU-MIDIS results showed that for the different aggregate
groups surveyed, between 57 per cent and 74 per cent of incidents of assault or
threat were not reported to the police. At the same time, between 60 per cent
and 75 per cent of these incidents were regarded by different aggregate groups
as ‘serious’. Table 2.5 indicates that the main reason given by victims for not
reporting their last experience of assault or threat was their lack of confidence in
the police. This was followed by the response that the incident was too trivial or
not worth reporting, which, given that the majority of victims also considered
incidents of assault or threat to be serious, would seem to indicate the
‘everyday’ nature of incidents that are serious for victims.
56
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/19/bbc-panorama-racism-bristol-report.

Annual Report 2010
44
Table2. 5: Reasons for non-reporting (EU-MIDIS) (%)
Sub-
Saharan
African CEE
Ex-
Yugosl
av
North
African
Rom
a
Russi
an
Turkis
h
% % % % % % %
Reasons for not reporting
(DD13)
No confidence in the
police
47 33 55 34 75 41 52
Too trivial/not worth
reporting
24 25 41 22 27 24 44
Dealt with the problem
themselves
17 15 32 18 40 37 30
Concerned about negative
consequences
12 11 22 7 38 12 31
Inconvenience/too much
trouble/time
13 16 16 10 11 18 31
Fear of intimidation from
perpetrators
9 6 12 8 35 10 19
Negative attitude to police 7 5 4 9 33 18 24
Language
difficulties/insecurities
6 4 2 3 1 9 5
Reported elsewhere 4 2 0 2 1 0 0
Residence permit
problems
0 4 2 5 0 0 0
Other reason 15 13 4 12 16 12 10
In addition to data on assault and threat, EU-MIDIS also collected detailed
information on experiences of serious harassment. The percentage of all survey
respondents experiencing serious harassment was greater than for assault or
threat; with between 53 per cent and 79 per cent of victims indicating that they
considered their most recent experience in the last 12 months to be racially
motivated (the EU-MIDIS Main Results Report provides detailed findings).
2.6. Encouraging developments?
By 28 November 2010, Member States should have implemented Council
Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and
expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, and by 28
November 2013 the first assessment of its implementation will have been
undertaken. In the run up to the implementation of the Framework Decision,
encouraging developments can be noted in some Member States that have taken
measures designed to give effect to this legislation at the national level; for
example, the Czech Republic,57
Denmark,58
Malta59
and Slovakia.60
57
Czech Republic/Zákon č. 40/2009 Sb., o trestní zákon [Act No. 40/2009 Coll., Criminal
Code], available at HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexdata.cz/lexdata/sb_free.nsf/c12571cc00341df10000000000000000/c12571cc0

Annual Report 2010
45
Given these developments, one might expect to see some improvement in data
collection on racist crimes that can serve to monitor application of this law in
practice. Against this expectation, in late December 2008 Ireland’s National
Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI), which was
the key voluntary mechanism for monitoring racist crime, preparing bi-annual
reports on racist incidents, was closed due to budget cuts. As a result, Ireland
has lost one of its core data collection mechanisms on racist crime. In contrast,
amendments to how data on racist and hate crime is recorded in Finland and
Sweden have served to further enhance these countries’ continued good
practices.
The continued absence or limited nature of criminal justice data on racist crime
in many Member States shows that much still needs to be done to address the
gap between legislation, criminal justice data, and the reality of everyday
experiences of racist crime. In 2010, with a view to the forthcoming
implementation of Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA, the Agency is
undertaking a thorough mapping of existing criminal justice and civil society
data collection on racist crime and other hate crimes in the EU, the results of
which will be published in due course.
0341df1c1257556003df675?OpenDocument"http://www.lexdata.cz/lexdata/sb_free.nsf/c1257
1cc00341df10000000000000000/c12571cc00341df1c1257556003df675?OpenDocument (C
zech only, accessed on 12.10. 2009). The new Criminal Code is in force as from 01.01.2010.
58
Denmark/Consolidated Act no. 1068 of 06.11.2008 om Straffeloven.
59
Malta/ HYPERLINK
"http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/parliamentacts/2009/Act%20XI%20Criminal%20Code.pdf"
Act No. XI of 2009 – entitled the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act, 2009,
HYPERLINK
"http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/parliamentacts/2009/Act%20XI%20Criminal%20Code.pdf" htt
p://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/parliamentacts/2009/Act%20XI%20Criminal%20Code.pdf
(12.01.2010).
60
Slovakia/zákon 257/2009 (16.06.2009); Slovakia/zákon 300/2005 (20.05.2005).

Annual Report 2010
46
3. Specific areas of social life
This Chapter looks at information and developments on racism and
discrimination in four areas of social life – employment, housing, education and
healthcare – and then looks at a number of other issues not already covered by
these four thematic areas. All of the material in this chapter relates to migrants
and minorities in the EU, namely third-country nationals, second or third
generation immigrants - in some countries known as ethnic minorities - and
members of traditional national minorities.
As stated in the Introduction, since the Lisbon Treaty, EU law for the first time
makes reference to ‘persons belonging to minorities’ and ‘membership of
national minorities’. As regards national minorities, it should be underlined that
whether or not a given minority is recognised a ‘national minority’ belongs to
the sphere of competence of the Member States, as the EU has no powers do
so.61
The respective situations and the status provided diverge considerably
among Member States and even within single Member States. This can even be
the case within one group of persons belonging to national minorities. For
example, Roma can enjoy markedly different treatment in the various EU
countries and also within one country. However, all of the Member States
except France signed the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the
protection of National Minorities (FCNM). Almost nine tenths of the EU
Member States – with the exception of Belgium, France, Greece and
Luxembourg – have committed themselves to a common European standard by
ratifying the FCNM, thereby providing some sort of recognition and protection
in line with this central document. The FCNM is thus flexible enough to
accommodate the diverging historic and political contexts in the Member States.
In 2008, the European Parliament requested the FRA to draft a report on the
question of minorities, including national minorities, which are vulnerable to
ethnic and racial discrimination. The FRA agreed to update its 2007 report on
racism and provide the Parliament on the basis of this request with a report on
persons belonging to minorities, based on data and information collected in
2008 and 2009. This report was finalised in May 2010 and presented to the
61
Which does not imply that certain restrictive practices would not be criticised in the
international arena. On February 2009, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of
Europe published a report on Greece regarding human rights of minorities criticising inter alia
the authorities’ refusal to recognise the existence of any other kind of minority except for the
‘Muslim’ one. See CommDH(2009)9, Human rights of minorities, Strasbourg, 19 February
2009, at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1409353. See also the most recent ECRI Report
on Greece, Fourth Monitoring Cycle, 15.09.2009, at
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Greece/GRC-CbC-IV-2009-
031-ENG.pdf (21.01.2010). See already the judgement of the ECtHR delivered in July 2008
in Sidiropolous and others v. Greece (application no. 57/1997/841/1047) .

FRA Annual Report 2010

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to FRA Annual Report 2010

Similar to FRA Annual Report 2010 (20)

More from Thomas Müller

More from Thomas Müller (20)

FRA Annual Report 2010